Bulk of Apple users still not moving to OS-X

aquafireaquafire
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Just finished reading an article in a leading computer lift-out ( The Australian ..the barrow ) that suggests that 60% of all mac users still aren't switching over to OS-X and that is three years after the original launch.



Numerous reasons were cited, but the overall impression from this vast untapped army of Mac devotees...is that it's just not as mac "friendly" as the traditional Mac OS's of olde.



Too much of NeXt and not enough of Apple..?



So should Apple be nervous about this ?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    Most computers are on a three-year-or-so life cycle. Folks still clinging to the bad old days and ways will eventually find themselves wanting more than their old machine provides. Apple still offers the best experience out there, and learning Mac OS X will be way easier than learning Windows. They'll move on to OS X eventually.



    And then they'll kick themselves for having waited so long to get here.



    Kirk
  • Reply 2 of 51
    iwantiwant Posts: 14member
    The PM G4 that i am currenlty using until my PB gets here will have os x tommorow, but its only a matter of time t'ill it all get5s to be OS x. I think a big reason that some arent swicthing to OS X is that if thy cant afford a new computer thay may not be able to afford all the new software or even want to get all the new software. I know that my Dad will hate OS x.3. It was software issues that stopped me from getting on to it in the first place, i have an unopened box of 10.1. I do agree with kirkland, in short time some will give up on there old pre X macs and have t switch to 10.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    So should Apple be nervous about this ?



    There are Windows people still running Windows 95.



    A lot of people simply never upgrade their OS. They stick with what their computer came with until they get another computer. Oddly enough, many Mac users don't even read Mac-oriented message boards every day, eagerly hunting for clues about what's coming up next.



    Shocking, I know.



    Over the next couple of years a lot of old, never-upgraded Macs will be replaced. Except for a few reverse-switchers that are inevitably going to be among the bunch, the owners of those old Macs will be replacing their Macs with new Macs that won't even boot OS 9. I'm guessing in two more years time, OS X will not only be the majority Mac platform, but a fairly solid majority.
  • Reply 4 of 51
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    Kirkland is right, people will be kicking themselves for not switching earlier. OS X has got to be the best thing to ever happen to the Mac (software-wise at least) I've had every version of X since it came out, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and now 10.3. Quite honestly, I did not use OS X exclusively until Jaguar came out. It took them a while for everything to be functional and for all the bugs to get worked out. I wouldn't go back to OS 9 if you paid me. Life is good with X. That should be Apple's slogan for their advertising campaign that they should have. If anyone from Apple reads this (which they won't) feel free to steal that from me. It's kinda catchy isn't it? Life is good with X.
  • Reply 5 of 51
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    I got my first Mac in September 2001. This was a cusp period; right on the border between 9.x the first useful version of OS X (10.1, in my opinion). I could have gone either way. As soon as 10.1 was available, that is what I chose. And it was not just a matter of OS X being the ?new thing?. Comparing them from a fairly unbiased perspective, OS X was just more attractive and easier to use. I understand that those who have older computers and are well familiar with them might stick to the old OS, but I am confident that they will move to OS X as they upgrade. If even my 70+ computer-phobic father-in-law could be convinced, recently, to move to OS X when replacing his old iMac with a new one, then anyone can.



    When are you moving to OS X. Aquafire?
  • Reply 6 of 51
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    There are Windows people still running Windows 95.



    A lot of people simply never upgrade their OS. They stick with what their computer came with until they get another computer.







    shetline and Kirkland get the gold star award for today.
  • Reply 7 of 51
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    What most people do != the right thing to do. Eventually Mac users will switch only because they have to. Those that have are pleased once they learn new tricks. If they're having trouble making an adjustment from OS 9 to OS X, imagine how hellacious a switch to Windows would be. I couldn't even fathom it.
  • Reply 8 of 51
    norfanorfa Posts: 171member
    There are a few programs that run under OS9 that don't run under OS10. On would be cu-seeme, that my wife uses at least 1/3 of the time she's on the computer. Vchat, the OSX alternative doesn't have and never will have many of the features that cam on Cu-seeme 3.13.004. So she boots into OS9 90% of the time. The other problem is she's a teacher and she has tons of assignment sheet done in OS9. When you open them up in OSX the fonts mess up and it take hours per assignment to reformat the pages. It may be that she'll have to switch to OSX one of these days, but she just bought an eMac that will boot into OS9, and if she gets 7 more years ot of it, she'll be retired before she needs a new machine. This is not going to help Apple sales. In know a number of people in similar situations. My wife, and one of the guys I work with have seen OSX and haven't found a reason to switch. You guys must be seeing something they don't. I reboot from OS9 at least 4 times a week myself. I love OSX, but there's those little pieces of software that I can't seem to replace. For me it's my marks entry program. For my school board it's Microsoft office. We can't configure any other software to do inter-school mail on a system that is predominantly a PC environment. Everyone seems to have a reason. If a Mac under OSX could do anything a MAC under OS9 could do, this would be just a matter of preference. But it's not. OSX doesn't have it all.
  • Reply 9 of 51
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by norfa

    There are a few programs that run under OS9 that don't run under OS10. On would be cu-seeme, that my wife uses at least 1/3 of the time she's on the computer. Vchat, the OSX alternative doesn't have and never will have many of the features that cam on Cu-seeme 3.13.004. So she boots into OS9 90% of the time. The other problem is she's a teacher and she has tons of assignment sheet done in OS9. When you open them up in OSX the fonts mess up and it take hours per assignment to reformat the pages. It may be that she'll have to switch to OSX one of these days, but she just bought an eMac that will boot into OS9, and if she gets 7 more years ot of it, she'll be retired before she needs a new machine. This is not going to help Apple sales. In know a number of people in similar situations. My wife, and one of the guys I work with have seen OSX and haven't found a reason to switch. You guys must be seeing something they don't. I reboot from OS9 at least 4 times a week myself. I love OSX, but there's those little pieces of software that I can't seem to replace. For me it's my marks entry program. For my school board it's Microsoft office. We can't configure any other software to do inter-school mail on a system that is predominantly a PC environment. Everyone seems to have a reason. If a Mac under OSX could do anything a MAC under OS9 could do, this would be just a matter of preference. But it's not. OSX doesn't have it all.



    Yes, but does OS 9 allow you to use paragraphs?
  • Reply 10 of 51
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    according to Apple (certified by a third party research organization)



    current installed base of machines with default OS X of Jaguar (10.2 or better)...



    = 8.5 Million machines.



    slope of the graph is pretty clearly increasing upward
  • Reply 11 of 51
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    It's no surprise that education is going to be kind of slow switching. Lots of specialized applications + tightened belts = reluctance to switch, understandably.



    However, I contend from my own experience helping people out that people who just sort of got by in OS 8 and 9 might actually find OS X significantly easier. The Dock is a much friendlier widget than OS 9 had, and the stability inspires a lot of confidence - people no longer worry (as much!) that the machine will crash if they try something different or new.



    The Mac users who really trip over OS X are the ones who'd really gotten comfortable with the nooks and crannies of the older OS, and with utilities and applications that haven't made it over yet. But this is a problem in general for power users.



    Generally, though, OS X adoption will be almost entirely driven by new machine sales. The average Mac user buys a machine and uses it as is until they feel a need to buy another one.
  • Reply 12 of 51
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad





    LOL. So right. I know of 3 people still running OS 9. Not because they dislike OS X, they just aren't geeks likes us that upgrade what we have. They just use what they have until they get a new Mac. One I'm sure has no clue what OS X is, the other two have heard about it from me but don't really know what I'm talking about. They just don't care nor keep up with what's new.
  • Reply 13 of 51
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    I'm sure my motivations are atypical, but since this article seems to refer to "people" like me, I'll post my personal views on the matter.



    Basically, I'm content with what I have. I only have basic computer needs. I have all the software I need loaded and tweaked to my very whim (estimated at 202 applications, occupying about 1.62 GB). I have my Mac OS9 environment customized to my liking to the tee. Kaleidoscope offers me an "endlessly" refreshing array of UI appearance choices. Same goes for sound schemes. I like my pop-up windows, icon buttons, labeled folders, and "drillable" Apple menu. Everything is just peachy.



    Suffice to say, I have my own private utopia here, as quaint as it may seem to others. Why mess with it? Why add the extra complexity of a 2nd OS? Why bother with the effort of buying all new OSX software and rebuilding the library only to duplicate the functionally I have already? It works fine as it is now- run with it, IMO. I have no great need to show off with the OSX graphic gimmickery. I am not suffering from any shortfall in multitasking performance. Memory management is not a great issue by default once you have enough RAM installed. System maintenance is a snap via familiarity and sheer simplicity of the system. The occasional "force-quit" of a crashed app may be inconvenient, but it is manageable in that the rest of the machine will remain up and running. Similarly, the occasional full machine lock-up is inconvenient, but not so aversive as to contemplate a full OS overhaul.



    Ultimately, the only way OSX will end up in my hands is if I ever need to buy a new machine in the future (as was suggested earlier as an explanation in this topic). Being that my current machine is not showing any clear signs of not being able to fulfill my meager needs in the near future, the necessity of buying an all new machine is dubious at best at the moment.



    Maybe it can be argued that perhaps Mac software is made too good so as to not fall into the trap of endlessly seeking out "the next update" so things can be "just a little better".
  • Reply 14 of 51
    influenzainfluenza Posts: 146member
    I can't argue with already having what you need and sticking with it. That's a smart move. But how exactly does having over 200 apps qualify as only "basic computer needs"?



  • Reply 15 of 51
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by norfa

    There are a few programs that run under OS9 that don't run under OS10. ....



    ....OSX doesn't have it all.



    But the opposite is also true. What happens when a new application that you want/need is not available on OS9?
  • Reply 16 of 51
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by norfa

    There are a few programs that run under OS9 that don't run under OS10. On would be cu-seeme, that my wife uses at least 1/3 of the time she's on the computer. Vchat, the OSX alternative doesn't have and never will have many of the features that cam on Cu-seeme 3.13.004. So she boots into OS9 90% of the time.



    Why boot OS 9 if Classic will do the job?



    Is your wife absolutely sure that CU-SeeMe won't run as a Classic app under OS X? From the Googling I just did, it looks like CU-SeeMe "Works well in classic mode under OS X". Your mileage may vary.

    Quote:

    The other problem is she's a teacher and she has tons of assignment sheet done in OS9. When you open them up in OSX the fonts mess up and it take hours per assignment to reformat the pages.



    Again... what about Classic? Even if double-clicking her old docs opens up a OS X app that messes up the formatting, unless she's already specifically tried this and found out it doesn't work, she should try opening the same docs with her old OS 9 app using Classic. Even with Carbon apps that run in both 9 and X (AppleWorks comes to mind), I believe you can force such apps to run as Classic apps.



    Also, maybe this is just a matter of making sure the same fonts she has in her OS 9 Fonts folder get installed for OS X.
  • Reply 17 of 51
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by norfa

    I love OSX, but there's those little pieces of software that I can't seem to replace. For me it's my marks entry program. For my school board it's Microsoft office. We can't configure any other software to do inter-school mail on a system that is predominantly a PC environment.



    You can definately get Microsoft Office for Mac OS X, and I've heard that it is pretty darn compatible with Office 2001 etc.



    Also, interoperability with PC networks is much, much better under X.



    Have you thought of asking in the software forum for suggestions for replacing your other apps?
  • Reply 18 of 51
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stupider...likeafox

    Also, interoperability with PC networks is much, much better under X.



    Although for some people (myself included) the ability to browser Windows networks is broken under Panther. Waiting for 10.3.1. \
  • Reply 19 of 51
    matt dangermatt danger Posts: 170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    Although for some people (myself included) the ability to browser Windows networks is broken under Panther. Waiting for 10.3.1. \



    Yeah, whats up with that? Kinda screws me at my college with a huge workgroup of Windows machines.
  • Reply 20 of 51
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Honest to goodness, those who aren't using OS X (particularly Panther) are really, really missing out on a slick, useful and intuitive way to use a computer.



    I understand about the whole "old habits die hard" and all, but come on, people...







    I finally put Panther on my G4 at work Monday and I'm SO much happier: Mail is better than Outlook Express, Safari beats Explorer, Address Book is nice to have all my work contacts/vendor info in, Sherlock (used it to find the location of a local Minolta repair service) rocks, etc. I now use iPhoto to load out images from our Kodak DC290, iCal to set up our print deadlines and other schedules, etc.



    What's NOT to like?



    And I use Exposé ALL THE TIME...it's not eye candy at all!



    Networking, printing, file management, previewing, etc. is all so much better in OS X.
Sign In or Register to comment.